Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1887-09-10
JIM, JOHN X GEORGE
AN ILLUSTRATION OF HENRY
GEORGES SINGLE TAX.
How 1t Works in Community in
Which the Means Of Production
Remain Private Property.
Died from Hunger.
A Poor Tramp.

John has u piece of land. He
sells it to Jim for $4,000. Jim
goes on improving his purchase;
John invests his money. Here
comes Henry George and says to
jim: "Your land must be taxed to
the full amount of what you paid
for it to John. As for John, he
shall not be taxed at all.
Is not this plain case of iniquit-
Gus discrimination against Jim in
favor of John in the name of public
right? Why should the land value
be taken again from jim, who al
ready once paid for it, instead of
being taken from John, who received
it?
Does it not seem, wi0ri, that if
one of the two must be taxed, John
is the fellow, since he got money
from jim, which, according to
George, belongs to the community?
Does it not seem, q priOri, that
the first thing to do would be to tax
John to the amount of $4,000;
after which Jim might rightly be
taxed in the future to the amount of
such additional value as his land
would acquire from other clrcum-
stances than his own exertions?
But, on further inquiry, we find
that John had bought the land in
question from Dick twenty years ago
for 1000; that Dick himself had
bought it from Tom forty years ago
for $500, while Tom originally got
it for nothing from a paternal gov
eminent. TO be just and consistent
we should, therefore, tax Tom, Dick
and John for $500, s., 500 and 81, 900
respectively. each sum being the
profit made by each successive owner,
and their aggregate representing the
value of the land when Jim bought
it.
Here George will probably object
that were it possible to trace the
title of every parcel of land to it's
origin, few of the previous owners
could now be reached.
TO this, however, the reply is OBJ
vious. The previous owners, in
Guiding John, may all be dead for
aught we care, and their heirs may
never be found. Nay; they may all
have failed and left nothing behind
them. But the money they "made"
out of the land is surely not dead.
1t is, in some form or other, "earn-
ing" profits for somebody. If
Georges chief premise be true, it is
the constant increase in the value of
land-that is, in his own words, of
''the original means Of production"
that has enabled its successive
owners to appropriate the second
airy MEANS" such as machinery,
buildings, merchandise, ETC., through
which Labor is now held in subjec-
ton. Why, then, should such in
struments, thus unduly appropri-
ated, escape taxation? Is it not
plain that by taxing them we shall
reach every profit previously made
upon land values in so far, at least,
as such profits have been crystalized
into values within reach?
Now, George may say: "This is
only question of equity in the prac-
teal application of great principle,
and does not involve the principle
itself, that land values belong to the
people in common. Although no
great reform was ever accom- plished
without injuring somebody, yet my
sincere wish is that this be carried
ont in spirit, not only of justice,
but of lenlency. As have repeat
edly declared, | don't propose to
take anything from anybody. Let
every one keep what he has, no mat
ter how he may have acquired it. |
look to the future, not to the past.
Therefore, if it be found unjust to
tax Jim on the $4,000 which he
has paid to John, let it not be done.
Let us be content with taxing him
out of such additional values as his
land must continue to acquire from
other circumstances than his own
exertions. In other words, let us
take as basis the presen. laid val
nor and to- al. IL. ILL.,. -.